Critics take a swipe at Chris Anderson's new book

Chris Anderson is not having a good week. It's open season on the Wired editor-in-chief who earlier this week suffered an assault by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker. Today it is the turn of the FT and its message is clear: "Free does not live up to its billing".

Gladwell kicked off an East Coast versus West Coast face-off with his New Yorker piece earlier this week, but you know without the hollow points, in a damning review of Chris Anderson's new book 'Free: The Future of a Radical Price' his follow up to his best seller 'The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling More of Less'.

First up, the New Yorker writer dismissed Anderson as a technological utopian who had got it wrong.

"It would be nice to know, as well, just how a business goes about reorganizing itself around getting people to work for 'non-monetary rewards'. Does he mean that the New York Times should be staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels? Anderson’s reference to people who 'prefer to buy their music online' carries the faint suggestion that refraining from theft should be considered a mere preference. And then there is his insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital economy.

"Why is it a law? Free is just another price, and prices are set by individual actors, in accordance with the aggregated particulars of marketplace power. 'Information wants to be free,' Anderson tells us, 'in the same way that life wants to spread and water wants to run downhill.' But information can’t actually want anything, can it? Amazon wants the information in the Dallas paper to be free, because that way Amazon makes more money. Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle?"

Today John Gapper in the FT has a crack at Anderson and his argument that "there really is a free lunch. Sometimes you get more than you pay for" although he says early on it is unfair to dismiss Anderson as a "digital utopian who is in intellectual and financial hock to Silicon Valley companies".

He argues 'Free' is more than propaganda for the West Coast software firms and venture capitalists, who have made their money and hope to make more out of being free although to be fair some have made it by charging you $2000 for a shiny laptop with a picture of a piece of fruit on it.

Gapper says the book is largely insightful. He describes it as "steady and scrupulous analysis of the past and present of free products and services" all at a time when newspapers, who are after all part of this "free revolution", are going out of business faster than you can say "free lunch" as the reporters whose jobs are going (thousands this week alone in the US with Gannett and in the UK with Trinity Mirror) could sure use it.

To borrow from Shakespeare "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves". The same appears to be true of Anderson. It is not in his writing, which is as engaging as ever, but in the very nature of his sweeping arguments.

Gapper says the problem is that Anderson veers between sweeping statements and balancing paragraphs in a manner that leaves the reader unsure of what he is actually saying.

"It is an intellectual version of a ride in a New York taxi whose driver alternately pumps the accelerator and stamps on the brakes.

"Early on, we learn: The new form of Free is not a gimmick, a trick to shift money from one pocket to another [like razors and blades]. Instead, it's driven by an extraordinary new ability to lower the costs of goods and services close to zero. While the last century's Free was a powerful marketing method, this century's Free is an entirely new economic model'.

"That is a big claim and it never really gets substantiated, at least not at the scale of Mr Anderson's rhetoric. Actually, quite a bit of what he claims to be new appears really to be the virtual equivalent of 'buy one, get one free' or the cheap subscriptions long offered by US magazines."

Gapper goes onto argue that Anderson's vision has two flaws: first, as Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, has pointed out, network effects unleashed by digital technology tend not to spawn free competition among equals but a "winner takes all" effect in which a single company emerges with all the spoils. In the software era, that company was Microsoft; in the internet era, it is Google.

"The second flaw is that, even if the cost of digital distribution is lower than that of physical distribution, the marginal cost of production is not cut to zero. Companies have many costs, from marketing to employing people to make things. Offering things free on the internet is loss-leading just as surely as handing Jell-O recipe books to American housewives was in 1904."

Whatever happens we are all going to be reading this and I for one am looking forward to hear Anderson answer some of these critics tonight "Free–The Future of a Radical Price" 2 July Royal College of Physicians".


Follow me on Twitter

Hello ESPN America and baseball

Earlier this year something quite terrible happened. You probably heard. Due to budget constraints Five ended its long running coverage of baseball, but it turns out there was an upside to all of this.

If you ever watched Five's coverage it was quirky. It was hosted by TV presenter Jonny Gould and former GB baseball player Josh Chetwynd and aired around one in the morning.

Five aired it tucked away in its schedule with only chatlines for advertising company for a decade. And then suddenly it went.

All that left British baseball fans with was ESPN America (formerly the North American Sports Network or NASN, which was bought by Disney and rebranded earlier this year), but to get that you had to buy a bunch of channels from Setanta, which made for a slightly pricy option if all you wanted was baseball.

Then something else happened. Sad as it is Setanta went bust and up to the plate stepped Disney's ESPN, which last week acquired its first live English Premier League (EPL) TV rights in the UK and a presence on Freeview.

Better still ESPN America is now free on Sky with certain channel packs. Although confusingly it took a little while to realise this and Sky Customer support is officially Grade A stupid.

I saw on some website at the weekend that following Setanta's demise you could now add for very little ESPN America to you package. Awesome, I mean great, so I emailed Sky and here is what they told me:

Hi Gordon, Customer Account Number: xxxxx

Thanks for your e-mail about adding ESPN America to your entertainment package.

I'd like to advise that, ESPN America is a third party subscription and for the cost and subscription you need to directly contact them on their website www.setanta.com.

If you wish to remove Sky Sports Pack from your viewing subscription, please reply back to the same e-mail or you can contact our Customer Services.

I hope the information I have provided about ESPN America subscription and removing Sports Pack from your viewing subscription has helped with your enquiry. If you require any further assistance, you can respond to my email. You can also contact our Customer Services on 08442 41 41 41, where one of my colleague will be happy to help.

Thanks, Ahsan, Sky Help Centre

Hmm. Sorry Ahsan, but that was far from helpful. I mean don't they tell you anything at the Sky Help Centre, you know, so you can help customers? Apparently not.

Anyway, joke was on me. I then read somewhere else that ESPN America was now part of the News and Events package…which I already had. Errrm, bingo, there it was waiting for me to add it to my favourites. I realised this on Monday just in time to catch the third game of the Subway Series as the New York Yankees went on to beat the New York Mets 4-2 in what was a tightly fought close game with an emotional finish as closer Mariano Rivera went on to make his 500th career save. Awesome.

I'm looking forward to a summer of baseball and I have informed the guys at the Sky Help Centre where they too can find ESPN America: channel 417 on your Sky box. Whoever knew it went up that high?

 

Follow me on Twitter

Rick Astley isn't dead (unofficial)

Reports circling this morning saying that Rick Asltey, the king of Rickrolling, has died, are apparently fake. Thank the gods of Rickroll. Oh the perils of user generated content.

 

The reports first appeared on the CNN's user generated content website CNNi, before generating a few news reports. Including this one on the Maylasia Star that claimed he had died in his hotel in Berlin.

 

1980s pop icon Rick Astley, 43, found dead in Berlin hotel room
Malaysia Star - ‎1 hour ago‎
BERLIN: Known for his 1980s pop hit Never Gonna Give You Up, 43-year-old Rick Astley has been pronounced dead Tuesday. His body was found at the Angleterre Hotel...

 

The CNNi iReport said an ambulance responded to an emergency and Astley was found unconscious in his hotel bedroom and was unable to be resuscitated. He was pronounced dead on the scene.
 

 

There were also reports on this Indian website Ihatky.In, but oddly nowhere else.The Inquisitor and Twitter is emphatic and Twitter is awash with talk of another fake celebrity death. Rick Astley is the number one trending topic on Twitter outstripping even Michael Jackson for which I think people are thankful for. 

The Inquistor says that unlike previous fake celebrity deaths, the use of CNN’s iReport gives this a little more legitimacy up front, at least if you don’t know how iReport works.

 

The site wrote: "iReport is open to all submissions without pre-publication review: I could submit a story saying Rick Astley is dead at the hands of an advanced civilization of alien music lovers and it would be published until such time CNN pulled it it. Rick Astley is not dead, Rick Astley has not died, Rick Astley was not attacked by aliens either."

 

Rick rolls on. Quite literally. Next.

 

Follow me on Twitter

 

Sad but true: buy one newspaper title and get another free

There is something a little sad and dispiriting about this. It is being reported that whoever buys the Boston Globe will get another New England newspaper thrown in for free. In this case the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

 

It is almost like some newspapers are doing so badly that media owners are willing to give them away as opposed to simply closing them down, which can be more costly depending on labour deals.

 

It could be taken as an indication of how keen the New York Times Company is to offload the Boston Globe, I mean why else would it also be willing to throw in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette?

 

The bundling of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette with the Boston Globe comes according to a letter sent to possible bidders by Goldman Sachs, which is handling the sale of the loss making paper. The letter was (funnily enough) seen by New York Times reporters. This always makes me laugh particularly when the story includes (as this one does) the line that the New York Times Co had no comment to make.

 

"The confidential letter from the company’s investment bankers at Goldman Sachs, which was obtained by a Times reporter, says the company will focus on getting the highest price and “on the certainty and speed with which bidders can sign a definitive agreement and complete an acquisition.” It sets a July 8 deadline for initial, nonbinding bids, after which the company would choose which potential buyers would participate in a second round and would be allowed to submit binding offers," the New York Times reported.

 

On Paidcontent, which blogged the story, it also had that an internal New York Times Co memo sent out earlier this week, revenues at the New England Media Group (which includes the Globe, Boston.com, the Telegram & Gazette and its website) were revealed to have declined from $700m  in 2004 to $524m last year.  The Boston Globe itself is set to lose $85m this year alone.

 

There are three bidders in the running for the paper including Jack Connors, co-founder of Hill Holiday.

 

Follow me on Twitter

Why the critics are wrong - the BBC and Glastonbury

This year looked like (one of the many) when people were suffering Glastonbury envy, but while only 140,00 people got to go, the rest of us could soak up some of the BBC's most excellent coverage. It reminded me again that we're lucky to have it at such a cheap price.

 

I write this, of course, after the BBC came underfire yet again at the weekend for what the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times were calling excessive coverage and the fact that it sent 407 people to cover the festival.

 

But worse than that...get this, some of those people went for free?! OMFG. Can you believe it, people working in the media went somewhere for free. Its shocking.

 

It would be nice to see a list of the freebies that the reporter's writing these stories had enjoyed. I can own up to having gone to Glastonbury in the past for free several times. Not to mention one or two other places.

 

Not sure about you, but over the course of the weekend I sampled BBC Glastonbury coverage on BBC Two, BBC Three, used the BBC's red button interactive service and listened (as always) to the most excellent Adam & Joe show on 6 Music. It was so well done (minus Jo Whiley who makes me want to destroy my TV set).

 

People moan about how Sky and ITV don't send anything like this to such events. Well no, of course not, for as good as these services can be they are not the BBC and they do not cater for the millions who tune in, turn on and chill out. Having caught some Bruce Springteen I even impulsed purchased 'Born in the USA' and a few 'Born to Run' tracks. Proving what a boost it is for the music industry.

 

The most boring thing about those attacking the BBC is that it is the same old faces: some Tory or other who took time out from his second/third job to vent his outrage and some alliance of tax payers whose mission in life is to spoil the party.

 

So thanks BBC; nice work

 

Follow me on Twitter

 

PS Mark Byford should get in the back of a black cab, I mean seriously.

No bounce back for traditional media says Ballmer

Steve Ballmer, the Microsoft chief executive, was sounding pessimistic in Cannes yesterday and warned publishers that there was going to be no bounce back and that the global advertising economy had reset for good.

Ballmer argued that traditional print media will have to plan business models around a smaller share of the advertising market.

To be honest not exactly a news flash. Nor is the fact that publishers are failing to generate serious digital revenues.

Ballmer said: "Once you get past the Google search site, you say, 'Is there a publisher making a lot of money with an advertising- or fee-based model?' The answer is no. We have to ask who will be creating the content."

It could be me, but he's sounding a tad pessimistic. I think one of the issues that people often forget when they predict doom and gloom is that this is all pretty new.

And in some senses the recession has been a benefit as it has forced publishers to maybe face up to questions about paid content faster than they might have done. It's the thing about adversity driving innovation and development.

Ballmer talked about all content being digital in two, five or ten years, but it has only been ten years since we really got on this road and maybe only four or five since the levels of investment publishers were pouring in started to rise dramatically.

So far these are investments that have not been recouped. It's been a period of experimentation: it began with charging; then it became free and now we're back again with the realisation that it is probably a mixture of the two.

It is too soon to make sweeping judgements about making or not making money online. The challenge is to make money and to experiment.

Some paid content will come back as publishers also realise they can charge for mobile phone access and e-readers like the Amazon Kindle. Not all these experiments will work, but some will.

What underscores all of them is continuing to build strong communities online and building loyalty. That's the only way to ensure future growth and profitability.

 

Follow me on Twitter

Twitter proves major boon for media websites

Some interesting Twitter data from Hitwise that reveals what a boon the service is for media content sites in terms of driving traffic with newspapers in particular coming out winners.

Hitwise says that Twitter traffic has increased 22-fold over the last 12 months and a result of that increase is a leap in traffic to media websites (with newspaper sites and Twitpic amongst the sites benefiting), but not online retailers.

Last month Twitter was the 30th biggest source of traffic for other sites in the UK and accounted for 1 in every 350 visits to a typical website.

More interesting is that 56% of that traffic is sent to other content-driven online media sites, such as social networks, blogs, and news and entertainment websites.

That's confirmation of what we all know and love about Twitter. It is a great place to break news and share links to good content (okay some of it – like this – might be your OWN content, but really there's nothing wrong with a little self promotion as long as that's all it is).

What isn't happening according to the Hitwise numbers is masses of traffic going to transactional websites. Only 9.5% of Twitter's downstream traffic is sent this way.

That's as it should be. Who wants Twitter to turn into QVC? You can tell people about stuff, but if they want to buy it, well, they're mostly pretty smart and know how to use the internet.

Where there is transactional action going on (like Dell for instance), it is mostly opt-in, where people are signing up to follow Dell Twitter accounts when they are in the market for a new PC.

Hitwise contrasts these figures with other popular sites. Google UK sends 30.7% of its traffic to transactional sites, while for Facebook the figure is 14.7%.

The winners: newspapers and Twitpic

Hitwise has Twitpic down as one of the big winners to emerge in terms of traffic whether. It is definitely the site that you hear everyone mention first when talking Twitter and images.

In May Twitpic picked up one in every 13 downstream visits from Twitter with UK visits to the site up 250-fold over the last 12 months. This makes it the third most popular photo website in the UK behind Flickr and Photobucket.

For newspapers, many of which like the Guardian and the Times have multiple Twitter accounts, Twitter was the 27th biggest source of traffic to news and media - print websites in the UK during May.

The success here is finding the right level to engage with the community and to work that virally, but Robin Goad, director of research at Hitwise, makes a good point here in identifying that it is the journalists who are often the strongest asset rather than the official feeds.

"Although all of the newspapers have multiple 'official' feeds, these tend to be bland and have very low retweet rates. Journalists tweeting themselves and engaging with the Twitter community typically have more success in creating viral stories,” Goad has said.

More Hitwise Twitter stats

UK Internet traffic to Twitter increased 22-fold over the last 12 months.
May 2009 Twitter was the 38th most visited website in the UK and the fifth most visited social network
Vast majority of Twitter's growth (93% of it) occurred during 2009.
May 2008 Twitter was the 969th most visited website and 84th most visited social network.

 

Although on the point  of Twitter only being the 5th most popular website Hitwise does not monitor third party apps like Tweetdeck, which many people use to access Twitter, which means Twitter in reality is not the fifth most popular site, but more likely to be the third most popular social networking site in the UK if not higher.

 

Follow me on Twitter

MySpace goes into rapid retreat/embraces its future

There's carnage at MySpace. Almost 800 jobs cut within a week and the closed sign is being hung up around the world. It looks like today we are seeing the social media map being reshaped.

Last week MySpace laid off 420 staff in its US offices. Today it has cut a further 300 internationally and is closing down a host of offices as it retrenches and faces up to its place in the world.

In the new world order of MySpace, London, Berlin, and Sydney will be the primary regional hubs for MySpace as offices in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, and Spain get the chop as has Travis Katzis, the MySpace SVP and MD, who is leaving, having grown staff around the world from two to more than 400.

The cuts have come as new MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta has been given the job of re-envisioning the social networking site and helping it "operate as a nimble and entrepreneurial company with the adaptive mentality of a start-up".

That has come against a backdrop of MySpace usage falling rapidly away. In the last year the number of minutes spent on the site has fallen by 31% (although it remains top for video) while Facebook soared 700%.

MySpace has lost its place as a general social networking site and these tough cuts are obvious signs that it has accepted this.

Where MySpace is strong, is in music and video or entertainment more generally. As a place for promoting new music and bands, as well as movies, MySpace has its niche, but is that enough?

I saw a headline last week on Adage, which posed this question neatly: Can Bruno (as in Sasha Baron Cohen) save MySpace? Or "MeinSpace" as the campy Austrian character calls it.

'Bruno' is another movie that has close ties with MySpace, which has a special MeinSpace.com hosted page.

The story detailed how 'Bruno' was only part of MySpace efforts to forge deep ties with the entertainment industry and major studios.

Something seems to be working. Bruno has 330,000-odd friends on MySpace, but only 31,500 on Facebook and around 14,000 followers on Twitter (who are these people?) where his username is @brunovassup.

For MySpace this is retrenchment, but clearly the right thing to do and from its perspective it is clearly better for it to embrace this rather simply try to continue to compete as a more general social networking site such as Facebook.

This suggests several things. There are a whole bunch of special interest gaps out there.

Fake profiles and anonymity have always been the order of the day on MySpace. As some have said before this was like Twitter in the early days, but increasingly Twitter has become more like Facebook. People have ditched their fake names and more and more only want to connect people who only have their real names.

I started out as GordonM before changing my username to my actual name. It makes sense.

The fakery and anonymity means that MySpace is taking on increasingly the properties of niche interest social networking sites. If you are a cyclist for instance you probably go to Bikeradar or a runner you go to Runner's World. And when you do you are likely to be a member of them in addition to broader sites like LinkedIn and Facebook.

This gives us a world where we have a number of top level broad interest sites (like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn) and more special interest sites (both international and local) of which a retrenched MySpace appears to be one of.

 

Follow me on Twitter

Why Cannes and TV advertising doesn't matter

As some in the advertising industry pack their ice bucket and Bollinger and head to Cannes International Ad Festival I can't remember a year when going has mattered less. It's like Big Brother this year, but even less important than that.

Of course, this year it has become very fashion to rubbish Cannes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. Bob Garfield at Ad Age created a local weather front in the US the other week with his "Cannes Doesn't Matter Anymore... and Neither Do the TV Ads It Celebrates".

Garfield slated Cannes in response to what he called an advertising black hole (with the notable exception of some Burger King work) before he asked what's the point?

This moment of advertising irrelevance, and when I say that I'm talking really (as is everyone else) about TV advertising, has been creeping up on us for sometime. It is the elephant in the room.

TV advertising as we all know is 99% undisputed annoying, repetitive crap. Banal and largely totally forgettable dirge that pollutes the world we live in as much as any oil slick.

But worse than pollution, it is increasingly a waste of money as the effectiveness of TV advertising declines even faster than the reputation of your average banker.

I was having this conversation last week at a lunch with Thinkbox boss Tess Alps.

I said that basically I watch no television advertising anymore because I watch next to no live TV.

If I am watching a recorded programme from commercial TV when it gets to the ad break I simply tap stop; hit play again and tap the time forward by five minutes. This is roughly the gap given over to the ad break plus any programme promos. It takes about three or four seconds and it is a far easier and quicker than watching TV whilst fast forward at x30. Frankly, I am surprised that everyone doesn't do this.

But you can guarantee that if I do it plenty of others do it as well.

What I also said to Tess though was that while this process relieves me from the pollution of a stream of retail, finance, detergent and car ads, I usually cannot avoid the top and tail programme sponsorships.

In my mind these will increasingly become the most valuable item in the arsenal of many advertisers. I have a high recall of these and I can tell you of the two I saw last week are still stuck in my mind. Carpetright (sponsor of 'House' on Sky One) and BQ ('Property Snakes and Ladders').

In the first instance, Carpetright is I imagine some god awful place where carpet is sold. I could be wrong. In the second, B&Q I really don't mind so much. I have a Victorian house. It's not all that finished. I don't mind the B&Q thing. I would be in favour of the rules here being relaxed to allow them to pitch more products or little promos (sanding your floors – here's what to do).

I digress kind of, Garfield wrote about the blah that ad men come out with. How they say it is not about TV or print or outdoor, but about the idea, which then begs the question why do you need to go to Cannes on some huge party jamboree to celebrate the work (and watch it while you're there).

If you have ever been subjected to watching a few reels then after a not very long period you start to think either a) wow advertising is so powerful sometimes, I can really see that now; or b) kill me now I am so bored.

The people who think a) or at least tell you they think the first option are doing so because its their job, they're lying, or they're living in a fantasy land fuelled by booze, drugs and trips to South Africa and New Zealand that help to make selling deodorant or 4x4 slightly more appealing. Gosh it sounds harsh when you put it that way.

 

It fell to David Lubars, chairman and chief creative officer of BBDO, to hit back at Garfield's assault and having watched it (on this Adage video) you can't help but ask is that it?

 

 

Lubars agreed that Garfield was a little right (he hadn't seen much decent work either) before going on to sound a bit like a dusty record. He said Cannes needed to evolve and "recognise the cool integrated things that are happening".

He was probably referring to that digital stuff that everyone goes on about. Maybe he had been reading about Twitter. Who knows.

Maybe Cannes needs to evolve or maybe you simply don't need it. I don't care either way particularly other than to say what it does most of (and what those who get most excited about) is the "film" part, the TV ads, which increasingly a) don't seem to cut it; and b) are increasingly irrelevant in a market that a lot of advertising agencies are struggling for relevance.

 

 

Follow me on Twitter

Twitter wars: Israel, Iran and conspiracy theories

Wild claims are being made that Israel is harnessing Twitter to bring down the Iranian regime as evidence also emerges of fake accounts being used by Iranian hardliners to spread disinformation. Yep, it’s a Twitter war.

First the revolution and now the war. There are reports on some websites that Israel is part of a conspiracy to destabilise the Iranian government. It was only ever a matter of time before someone blamed Israel (Iranian leader Mahmoud Aminajad has pretty much made a career out of it).

The Jerusalem Post's online coverage of events in Iran has been cited as an ostensible key element behind the Iranian "Twitter Revolution," and characterized as being part of a purported Israeli conspiracy to stoke unrest in the Islamic republic.

It goes on to detail an article entitled 'Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter', which appeared on the far left Axis of Logic website where the writer says "right-wing Israeli interests are engaged in an all out Twitter attack with hopes of delegitimizing the Iranian election and causing political instability within Iran".

Apparently, the "proof" was an online entry published on Sunday on the Jerusalem Post's 'The Persian Abyss' blog, in which three active Iranian Twitterers were mentioned.

The Axis of Logic post goes on to sound like a conspiracy nut maybe further evidenced by the fact the piece is not bylined.
"Why were these tweets in English? Why were all of these profiles OBSESSED with Iran? It became obvious that this was the work of a team of people with an interest in destabilizing Iran. The profiles are phonies and were created with the sole intention of destabilizing Iran and effecting public opinion as to the legitimacy of Iran’s election."

I like that: it became obvious. Well dub, of course it did. But seriously who wouldn't be interested in Iran? I heard there was an election brewing that at one stage looked like a one horse race. It became rather exciting when suddenly it looked like reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi had a chance, until it turned out that while many horses could race only one was allowed to finish.

On the other side of the coin Iranian interior ministry forces have definitely woken up to what Twitter may or may not be doing. A number of possible Twitter fake accounts with connections to the Iranian security apparatus have been identified.

They are being used to spread disinformation and people are being asked not to re-tweet them. I'm surprised it took them this long.

Who knows the real power of Twitter in this whole Iranian election struggle? There are a lot of people wondering about it.

I usually can't bring myself to read Andrew Gilligan, but in the Evening Standard today he has a fairly measured piece on Twitter and Iran – 'It may not achieve much - but Twitter is an act of faith'.

He thinks its effectiveness is overrated (I think he is right), but its impact (that faith he talks about in the headline) is far greater.

 

For a round of how Iranians are using social media (or not) check my 'Social media and the Iranian election' post

 

Follow me on Twitter

Cash rolls into the Twitter universe

Investors are loving Twitter with more than $23m poured into microblogging related start-ups.

According to ChubbyBrain, which reports on start-up activity, there are a couple of hundred Twitter start-ups out there, but only 11 have angel investors and venture capital firms backing them.

The $23m, most of which has gone to the likes of Bt.ly, Twitvid, Twitterfeed, Tipjoy, Stocktwts and Topsy, is creeping up to be close to half of the $55m that Twitter itself has attracted from VCs.

That's an impressive stat and shows how powerful the Twitter echosphere has become.

Events over the last few days in Iran where we are again hearing the term "Twitter revolution" is only likely to further fuel interest in Twitter related businesses, releasing more purse strings.

All that adds to the strength of Twitter and suggests that however long it is with us, it is not a short term player. Although, ChubbyBrain does mention the recent Harvard study that said many Twitter users don't, errrm, tweet.

It says: "If the growth and zeitgeist surrounding Twitter were to continue unabated, it would not be surprising to see investment in start-ups offering capabilities/services based on Twitter also growing. But the last couple of weeks have also seen some critical analyses of the service which may temper enthusiasm for Twitter and as a result startups predicated on Twitter.

"But the questions and skeptics of Twitter are still seemingly in the minority. In Time Magazine's recent cover story about Twitter, Steven Johnson wrote how 'the key development with Twitter is how we’ve jury-rigged the system to do things that its creators never dreamed of and that 'the most fascinating thing about Twitter is not what it’s doing to us. It’s what we’re doing to it'."

The ChubbyBrain report follows the 140 Character Conference in New York (Los Angeles and London conferences are also planned) where Iran took centre stage.

Web entrepreneur Jeff Pulver, who organised the 140 Characters Conference, said it is too early to tell exactly where Twitter is going, but "I think what we're experiencing is something that's much bigger than all of us understand.

"The advent of Twitter has democratised access to information to everyone."

Paidcontent notes that  in "a sign, perhaps, that investors aren’t quite sure how to place their bets, no one sub-sector (be it search or photo or video tools) accounts for the majority of the startups getting funded".

That said, search-related start-ups are getting the majority of the cash, like search engine Tweetmeme and Topsy, as Twitter moves from early stage adoption to real-time search.

Topsy has received a lot of cash. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that it is backed by almost $15m.

Still while some people are making money out of Twitter (like Dell, which I mentioned the other day) the startups like TweetDeck and Stocktwits are not yet anywhere near making anything.

But as Paidcontent reports, that hasn't scared investors away as they have both have raised six-figure seed rounds.

And the all important URL-shortening service bit.ly has picked up $2m in its first round, which puts it as one of the real early winners (in raising cash).

Follow me on Twitter

The BBC and Digital Britain failure

Of course, internet access for all is really super. Hurrah. But the failure and misjudgement by Digital Britain on other big questions leave me totally underwhelmed. There's no progress on a Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide deal and the easy option of top slicing the BBC licence fee is a huge mistake. It is a slippery road.

First up once you have taken BBC licence fee cash you will do it again. It will give the next government so help us all the encouragement it needs to dig into the BBC a little deeper.

Early evidence of this comes if you look at the remarks of Conservative MP John Whittingdale who rebuked BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons for his robust defence of the corporation. Whittingdale says it is up to Parliament to decide the level and organisation of the licence fee. The man is an idiot.

He wants to organise how the licence is spent? Does he want to run the BBC as well? Of course, he does. I say again so help us all.

The BBC, as Sir Michael said, are guardians of the licence fee. Some might say they need to improve their guardianship in certain areas, but it does a lot and it does a lot really well.

There are no doubt some in the commercial sector, if not many, who welcome this. They would like nothing more than to see the BBC taken down a few pegs.

That is a mistake as it only plays into the hands into the hands of international media companies, like News Corporation and Bertelsmann, who are the only people who really benefit by taking cash away from the BBC.

They do not want to see a BBC that is strong enough to sit alongside the other big players in the broadcasting and media landscape; one that invests in high-quality journalism and other public service content, and supporting the creative economy. As we have seen this week as it has proved itself just about the best around with its coverage of the election aftermath in Iran.

It you could think of one way to waste money then spending it on yet more little-watched local news produced by ITV is the way to do it.

The problem with local news at the moment (and the BBC does a lot of it) is that it is not local enough. As someone said to me during the heavy snow we had this year all they wanted from local news was detailed coverage of what was happening in their village/town and beyond. That isn't available.

What is available is the chance to watch local politicians warble on about whatever it is they warble on about. Local politicians are the only ones who really enjoy this.

Why publicly fund two sets of local news? I really don't get it. Better to relax regulations on regional newspaper mergers and give those groups more freedom and encourage the development of online hyperlocal websites where people can find the information they really want.

ITN boss John Hardie talks about competing with the BBC locally (to provide "much-valued choice of sources and opinions"), but I think really all he wants (like everyone else) is more money to strengthen his organisation's future. It needs to do that without the BBC.

Local news is the last place we need that choice. In some markets its, frankly, overrated.

The BBC has already proposed better ways than Digital Britain of working with the commercial sector and moving forward through partnership.

"The BBC has come up with an ambitious programme of partnerships to help the wider industry support public service content during tough economic times. The BBC will continue discussions with Channel 4 about a possible joint venture with BBC Worldwide that would create value for both parties."

He is also right when he says top-slicing would damage BBC output, reduce accountability and compromise independence. It would he says become a slush fund. As I said, once it has been done once it will be done again. A Conservative government will not be able to keep its hands off of it ("did someone say there's a big pot of money around?"). The temptation will be too great: Digital Britain will have provided all the justification that it needs.

That is why top slicing must be rejected.

Lyons is also right when he says that the move would lead to the licence fee being seen as another form of general taxation. He says the BBC Trust will not sit quietly by and watch this happen.

"In particular, the Trust is not convinced of the proposal in the Digital Britain report to apply any of the surplus to fund a second regional news operation. There has not yet been a full and open debate about the suggested costs of these services, and it appears that the current proposals have failed to take into account potential sources of commercial funding as well as alternative sources of public funding."

 

Follow me on Twitter

Social media and the Iranian election

On Wired.com, Andrew Exum is wondering all about Iran and the explosive use of social media to organise, agitate and protest in Iran. He's wondering how real it all is? And if it is the technological enabled few rather than the digitally deprived masses.

 

He wrote: "Are we simply finding common cause with a technologically-assisted minority and confusing it for a popular movement? One observer of the Moldova protests noticed the way in which we Westerners get fascinated by 'Twitter revolutions' because, hey! We use Twitter too!"

 

The Wired piece quotes others who are not convinced, but from the pictures it looks bigger than the technological few. The few might have Twitter accounts, but they are it seems being used to organise and bring others together in massive protests.

 

There is so much going on and a lot of summaries are already around, but here's some of the multitude of links and posts that are coming out of the protests.

#IranElection is the top search term on Twitter which is being used by Iranians to co-ordinate protests and post photos and messages in the wake of the presidential election on Friday.

The opposition reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi is using updates via Twitter and is using it to rally his supporters.  One message on Mousavi1388 asks: "Confirmed by BBC Persian, please tell everyone to join them: Mousavi, Karoubi & Khatami will be at the protest. #IranElection"

When it appeared that Twitter was about to shut down for 90 minutes downtime tonight for maintenance, Twitter decided to reschedule the maintenance so the protests could go on.

Mousavi's Twitter feed also made a direct appeal to Twitter: "@twitter Twitter is currently our ONLY way to communicate overnight news in Iran, PLEASE do not take it down. #IranElection"

Yesterday @Mousavi1388 had 7,000 followers on that particular Twitter feed and today it has nearer 10,000. Another Twitter feed @StopAhmadi has more than 7,000 followers. A third feed, @Persiankiwi, has more than 18,000 followers.

The Twitter feed is being used as an unofficial media channel and one that is becoming indispensible for journalists covering the post election story. A tweet this morning, says: "URGNT@ ALL jornlsts, Tday 15:30 Prss Conf. in Tehran, Sadr MotrWay, Kave Shomali Blvd, Roshanayi St, Bahar Shomali St. Num. 9 #IranElection".

Mousavi's Facebook page has more than 53,000 supporters and many Facebook members have posted video while others are trying to persuade fellow Facebook users to change their personal icons to the colour green to show support for the Iranian opposition.

Users on Twitter are also trying to persuade fellow tweeters to change their location to Tehran to make it harder for agents of the interior ministry to track down protesting Iranians.

Blogs are also playing a major role. Iran has always had a large community of bloggers, not least because the number of young people in the country, and many are writing about the protests and like photoblog Tehranlive.org are posting photo updates hourly.

Others are posting images to Flickr and Google's Picasa and making the albums freely available on the web with hundreds of videos being uploaded to YouTube.

A real time feed of images being posted from Iran can be found on PicFog and Twitter users are using the likes of Twitpic to upload their images.

The increasing array of Twitter apps are all playing their role in the protests. Twitter search engine Twazzup is tracking all things Iran-related on Twitter.

Saeed Valadbaygi's 'Revolutionary Road' is one that provides a good source for pulling various coverage of the protests together.

As well as Iranian bloggers international news organisations, including the BBC, which with its Persian service has become a focus for Iranians and widely praised although it was being jammed intermittently over the weekend, and blogs like the Huffington Post, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan's blog and the New York Times' The Lede blog are covering the aftermath of the elections in detail.

Others such as the National Iranian American Council is live blogging events blog aggregation site Global Voices has a special section and is translating reports from the Iranian blogosphere.

CNN has not had a good protest. It has come in for some heavy criticism for failing to focus on Iran in depth and thousands used the label CNNfail on Twitter to vent their frustrations. Since then CNN has since ramped up its coverage, but it could be too little too late.

 

Follow me on Twitter

Who's making money out of Twitter

The irony of Twitter is that while founders Biz Stone and Co wrestle with the question of how to make a buck there are plenty of people doing nicely out of Twitter. Dell is one and it had made at least $3m so far.

You can see why. Dell has more than 640,000 followers on its Twitter.com/DellOutlet account (it has more than 30 others) and is already one of the top 100 accounts on Twitter. I'm guessing these are people who are signing up looking for deals on PCs as well as customer service.

It's posting stuff like this:

"20% off any Dell Outlet Printer. Enter at checkout: 06G$WMFPKXPCT8 – exp 6/2 or after 1st 500 redemptions. http://bit.ly/DmmQx"

And this:

"20% off any Outlet Studio Hybrid Desktop. Enter at checkout: GS?GCWLWKMWL0Z – exp 6/2 or after 1st 250 redemptions. http://bit.ly/hLEeo"

As part of its Twitter efforts, Dell is tailoring exclusive offers to customers all of which has directly contributed to $2m in sales and another million when traffic to Dell.com is factored in. Granted this has been since 2007, but you can write off 07 and half of 08. That's kind of BT (before Twitter, well before it really when supersonic).

By the end of the year I would guess the numbers would be much higher. Of course, you know what happens? Many people on Twitter if they see a really good offer will retweet it. A retweet from a well connected user could potentially be worth thousands of dollars.

This stuff is dynamite. No scratch that. It's better than dynamite its free dynamite. An army of followers who are comprised off people actively interested in buying products who tell their friends when they see something good and it costs almost nothing (once you have accounted for the time of the person doing the tweeting).

Others firm are doing this as well. I bought a Lenovo netbook in January after being tweeted a discount code and when it comes around to buying a new fully fledged laptop it’s going to be useful to check what's on offer on Twitter. The great thing about which is it is pretty uncluttered. If you go to the Dell Twitter account you know you will find offers pretty quickly. Both of those two above were on the first page of tweets. No clicking around. It's all there ready and waiting.

There are loads of other really good examples out there including some we wrote about last week such as @Comcastcares, @WholeFoods, @VirginAmerica, @MountainViewPD and @magiccurrykart.

There are others that most people are familiar with including Jet Blue and Zappos.<a name="5436465636"></a>

There was a buzz earlier this year when there was talk about Twitter maybe charging brands. I blogged that "Twitter should charge business users", but so far nothing has come of it, but when you see the value brands drive from it you just have to think, wow this is a potentially very potent direct sale channel, why not charge a buck or ten?

 

Follow me on Twitter

Buying the Independent? Or not

Is the Independent being sold? There's something happening, what is it exactly? Independent News and Media Chief Executive Gavin O'Reilly has said today there have been no talks with Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev.

O'Reilly's comments follow yesterday's lunchtime story that Lebedev was in advanced talks about buying the paper.

Speaking today to a Dow Jones reporter at IN&M's annual general meeting O'Reilly said that he's received no offer for the group's UK titles and has had no discussions.

"The board hasn't received any offer whatsoever from Mr Lebedev. The press has got ahead of itself.

"I've had no discussions [with Lebedev]. The board has had no discussion."

It's an interesting turn of phrase -- the bit about "the press getting ahead of itself". It could simply be that there's no story, but it seems from the various reports I've read that there is something is going on.

Maybe it isn't a sale. Maybe only closer relations (so to speak). I still think anyone would be bonkers to buy The Independent outright. It makes no sense - even if you're a billionaire. The future is not bright for The Independent. It still remains a candidate for becoming an online-only title. I've written about this once (No independent future - merger, digital or bust) or twice (The end of print for The Independent?) before.

Oh yeah and while we're on the subject why would you buy The Independent when you have just taken on another money pit, the London Evening Standard. Twitter me that.

People usually answer this question by saying that a tie-up between Independent and the Evening Standard would save costs. I'm sure some would be saved.

But the Standard is a London Evening News paper and the Independent is an (under funded) national newspaper so just how many savings will there be for example on the editorial front? I think the answer is less than people think and more than you would care for.

There are also serious money issues to be solved; IN&M is struggling to complete a €200m (£170m) refinancing deal.

Funnily enough The Times says that Lebedev "is reluctant to take on 'all the liabilities', according to one source familiar with the discussions".

It also mentions issues about Lebedev's financial position after reports that he was temporarily unable to pay journalists on his Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, in May. He is said to have lost a great deal of cash in the downturn. However, he claims to be worth over $2bn – I guess you would if you want to hang onto the title "billionaire".

 

Billionaire is such a bold and evocative word and, clearly, Lebedev is a bold individual. He did not get where he is without taking risks and there is no doubt that if this talk turns out to be correct, proves to be more than media gossip, then this would certainly qualify as another bold roll. 

 

Update: I see that Media Guardian is reporting that Daily Mail & General Trust is considering taking a stake in the Independent titles should they be acquired by Lebedev. It quotes senior industry sources saying that the Daily Mail owner could take a 25% stake in the combined business...which would also incorporate the Evening Standard that it just got rid off? Hmm, guess we'll know soon enough.

 

Follow me on Twitter